The jury determined that the product was defective because the manufacturer should have foreseen that someone would have ridden on it like that. Therefore a pto guard should have been designed and installed at the factory. That was my first lesson that common sense is not always part of court.

Different situation, I purchased a used Exmark zero turn mower.  I wanted a ROPS because I have a ditch to mow and wanted to be safe. I called the company. By luck, a high ranking employee answered the phone. He checked the serial number and determined that my mower never had a ROPS.  Therefore, I could not buy one. Exmark GAVE me one. Plus they paid their local dealer to install it.

This was company policy to everyone.  The high ranking employee told me that Exmark had been sued and won.  The family that founded Exmark and still owned it at the time felt bad. Even though they won the trial, the family decided to pay. They also decided they would install one, once, on every mower.  The kept records and would not replace a ROPS that had been removed.  I thought that was a great family.

Many details we don't have and no guarantee the accident would not have happened even if ballasted as recommended.

Someone went back to a basic manufacturer's recommendation, one recommended to reduce liability in the first place.

Any loss of life is tragic, but I am amazed at how many videos there are online showing tractors in use where the loader is way to high while the tractor is used for non loader ops. like baling hay. I have actually been told "I want it plenty high enough to see completely through it vs. leaving it just high enough to clear the windrow".

We were raised on the farm to keep loads just high enough off ground for travel and travel slowly if loaded at all until the point where it had to be raised enough to dump.

A swift boot or cuff upside the head was administered if the above was not followed and use on grades was not allowed.

Sometimes common sense would go a very long way.

This verdict should surprise no one who has experience in court.

A 38 year old man leaves behind a widow and an infant.  He buys new green paint to work his small farmette. He is excited and expects it to be ready to work. It was not. Deere’s own documents state it must be ballasted.  Ballast is on the delivery checklist. It was not done. Deere rep testified that solid ballast should be installed by the dealer, not the owner.  Evidence was that proper ballast would have probably prevented the death.

This case should have settled. 27 minute deliberation shows the jury did not have much doubt.  2 million punitive damage award means the jury did not think much of Deere’s case.

My opinion may not be popular.

Will add the Corvair got nailed on the rollover thing and they didn't even have front

end loaders(LOL)

FWIW, I think you're pretty spot on.  Personally, I don't see the connection to Deere itself.  Saying that doesn't mean I don't realize that connection is made in trials such as these all of the time.

That perspective is very close to my own...but I'm no trial judge.  However, I have been trying civil jury trials (for the defendants) for 21 years.

We can all say: "he should have known better" and on a cosmic level, that's right.  However, especially with compact tractors sold to people who have not always lived the farm life, it is not prudent to operation a business on the "he should have known" principle.  If you do, at least have really good insurance.

I see the cause against Deere as more tenuous, but think of it this way- Deere knew that the tractor needed to be ballasted:

1) What steps did they take to make sure it was before delivery?

2) Even though dealers commonly are the ones who do this, is there anything that kept Deere from doing it?

I don't know the theory against Deere, but I bet the 2 points above play a part.

 

Step 2,  legal mumbo jumbo.

 

 

I said personally, not legally. 

I will say only this: Being in compliance with one's own policies is great...but a jury gets to decide whether your policies meet the standard of care. 

I posted this and laplog as a 'head's up reminder'...  guess 'common sense' isn't common anymore.

I'm reminded of the kid up here, running his motocross  bike on well signed 'do not trespass' hydro property. Kid falls, breaks leg, sues Hydro, he WINS !!!! The kid was 100% WRONG but he won ?????

Oh well guys, be SAFE , 55 days until Spring !!!

No one I know was born knowing how to drive and operate a tractor,its a learned thing like about everything else in life.

Some won't learn no matter what. When I was working at a place where I parked on the street, at quitting time everyday a guy in a pickup would come racing around the curve just past all our cars parked on that street and people said he's gonna kill someone some day. Well one day he came around the curve and started sliding directly at us crossing the street. One guy couldn't get out of the way fast enough but lucky for him the pickup hit a parked pickup at the same time it him. Threw the guy walking a ways down the street but he just was bruised up a bit. The parked pickup was only a week or two old and that owner was one teed off fella. So was the guy who actually got hit. If that pickup hadn't been parked there he'd been run over or if the the idiot driver was a second slower he's been crushed between the two pickups.

Now you'd think the driver would have learned a thing our two from that incident but the next week he was doing exactly the same thing and to this day, 20 plus years later, he still drives like an idiot.

Deere apparently moved for a mistrial because, they say, the plaintiff never brought up ballasting as a defect until during the trial itself.  Usually, everything is out in the open and everyone knows what the other will be arguing well before trial.  However, when trial happens, the judge has a huge amount of latitude to allow evidence and arguments that the judge deems proper.

The judge denied a mistrial.

However, these portions of Deere's motion tell us why the dealer wasn't primarily at fault- thinking that the plaintiff was claiming defects in design and manufacturing that went to Deere, not what happened at the dealer, and the ballasting, the dealer's responsibility, not having been previously disclosed, Deere agreed to be liable for the dealer and itself (Deere, based upon the allegations before trial, did not believe that the dealer was at fault and likely had contract to defend and indemnify the dealer for product defects that were the fault of Deere).

Still looking for the comparative negligence info.

The Defendant claims non-use of the seatbelt as misuse.  The plaintiff was trying to keep the seatbelt non-use out of evidence stating that it is not misuse because misuse means using the product in a manner other than it is intended.  The defendant obviously wanted it in evidence.  I can't see the order on the motions in limine (motion to keep certain evidence out), but there was no jury instruction on misuse, so I am going to speculate that the evidence of misuse was inadmissible.

Disclaimer- this was an Oklahoma case.  I am an Indiana attorney.  I am not giving legal advice to anyone.  I am just commenting upon a case of interest.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. It's your responsibility to learn how to operate a piece of equipment. I hate that they family lost their loved one, but it's not Deere's fault.  

I heard of a suit where somebody got gobbled up by a Vermeer roller. They sued Vermeer because the pickup wasn't guarded to keep somebody from getting sucked in. In the end Vermeer won the lawsuit, when they finally proved that there was no possible way to guard the pickup to keep somebody from falling in, and it still be able to pick up hay. Sure, I've got off the tractor with the roller running before, but I know full well that every manufacturer tells you not to get off the tractor without not only turning off the PTO, but shutting the tractor completely off.     

Left 3 little girls and shook both families terribly.

Ford 4WD County and big slinger spreader that they found in a lower field. Initially, his father who went out on a 4-wheeler to see if he was broke down did not find him and it was now dark.

Others that went out found his feet, still in his socks and work boots as that was all that was left.

Graphic, yes, but the only thing they could figure was that he got out of tractor with pto on so as to clean off the spreader with a shovel handle as his father was meticulous about equipment care.

He was just shy of 30 years old.

Too many died in our area growing up, nearly all related to pto with others rollovers or logging accidents.

I still find myself thinking of my Dad if I get off a tractor while not even going near the implement where the pto is still winding down.

His words to us boys on the farm stayed with us and he would say nothing when a newspaper article was put in front of you at breakfast concerning another bad injury or fatality in the valley on a farm.

His favorite, "use your head" still rings true.